Avoiding parallels to the 1930s is tricky at the moment. On the one hand, referring everything back to Hitler like a badly-behaved Ken Livingstone is a bad idea; it cheapens the lessons we should take from the 1930s and it means when legitimate parallels are drawn they're lost in the wider drone. On the other, it's quite hard not to at times. There's the rise of increasingly extreme politics on both left and right. There's the increased trend towards nationalism. The Overton window has perceptively shifted towards nationalism being more and more acceptable, and with nationalism comes virulent nationalism: the kind of nationalism that legitimises a small minority of voices and silences others based on ethnic or political grounds.
The trends don't end there. Distrust of the 'political elites' was endemic in the 1930s, particularly in Germany. It played a key role in the rise of Hitler and allowing him to subvert the nascent democracy in the Weimar Republic. The idea that politicians then were not to be trusted came from the 'stab in the back myth'; that is to say, politicians in Germany were blamed for Germany's surrender in the First World War. The myth, perpetuated by nationalist politicians like Hitler, was that Germany's soldiers were betrayed by the politicians who signed the armistice and, in time, agreed to the Treaty of Versailles. That this was linked to rabid antisemitism should also not be overlooked in the context of the Third Reich. Racial politics and distrust of democracy helped Hitler to rise when times were hard in the 1930s, following the Wall Street Crash. It enabled his rise in the Reichstag and also played its part in allowing him to become the dictator of Germany, doing away with any semblance of democracy very quickly after he took power.
Whilst links to Nazi Germany may seem a little over the top, in the time I have been writing this Richard J. Evans has tweeted the question of whether current events are Britain's Reichstag fire moment. Professor Evans quite literally wrote the book on Nazi Germany, and I would encourage any and all to read his three-volume history of the Third Reich.
We live in a time of distrust of democratically elected politicians. We also live in a time where there is either increased fear of the 'other' or people who were always in fear have been given more of a voice for their opinions. The cause is simple, and it's the most divisive topic in British politics: Brexit. David Cameron's gamble has not paid off. The country is now more divided than it has been in a significant amount of time. The perception of a group of people is that some MPs are actively working to frustrate the so-called 'will of the people' following 2016's referendum result. The result is that politics is increasingly becoming a game to some people where the ends justify the means - any means.
The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament is unprecedented in modern history. In effect, Parliament's function has been suspended between early September and mid-October, just a matter of days before Britain defaults out of the European Union. I'm not going to sit on the fence here: this is a constitutional crisis and an outrage to Parliamentary democracy. I keep seeing a range of questions and answers being provided to those questions; often, those answers are completely politically motivated by leave voters or politicians. The justifications for this move just do not stack up. The justifications for actively suspending Parliamentary democracy are little short of a disgrace.
Of course, some ministers - mostly in the Lords, where the government whip has led the departures - either have resigned or will resign over this move in coming days. Some will be Brexiters. This won't matter to some people, who have the attitude that this is a matter of such importance that the most important democratic principles of the United Kingdom, built up over centuries, just don't matter. The irony is that it was just those democratic principles that many people in favour of Brexit were striving to protect.
I'm going to answer a few questions that people may have. These questions and the answers matter. If we are to live in a country recognisable as a Parliamentary democracy we cannot allow events to overcome long-standing principles.
So, without further ado, here are some questions and answers.
So what is proroguing?
In essence, it's the suspension of Parliament's functions. Parliament - which is the House of Commons and the House of Lords - cannot sit, which means it can't debate, it can't pass laws, and it can't fulfill its legislative function whilst asking questions of the government to hold the government to account.
But aren't MPs currently on holiday?
A good point. MPs do get a long summer recess from Parliament, where Parliament doesn't sit. The difference is that Parliament can be recalled at any time and Parliament itself sets the timetable for its holiday. While Parliament itself is on holiday, Members of Parliament spend much of their time in their constituency, working on constituency issues which they wouldn't often get the chance to work on otherwise, as they're expected to be in London.
So how is proroguing different from recess?
In the case of Parliament going into recess, Parliament itself has set the timetable. Rules surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty dictate that Parliament decides its own times, its own business, what issues it debates, and so on. The key principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is that, in theory, nobody can tell Parliament what to do unless Parliament itself agrees to do what it's told - or asked - to do. Proroguing is where the government breaches that principle and Parliament is suspended against its will. It's the difference between deciding your own annual leave and your boss telling you you're taking five weeks at this time, just when really important things are happening at work.
But surely Parliament should do what the people tell it to do, and leave won, so Parliament should be just getting us to leave?
Let's break this down.
First of all, we're not a direct democracy. We're a representative democracy. Each constituency sends a representative to the House of Commons where their vote has equal weight to each one of the other 649 MPs (I've included Sinn Fein because I can't remember just how many seats they have). It's the duty of an MP to act in the best interests of their constituency and the country, and sometimes what is popular isn't necessarily the right option.
On the same principle, we must remember that 48% of people voted to remain in the EU; Parliament must represent people who voted to leave and people who voted to remain. There's no two ways about it. It's not as simple as 'leave won, we're off'. There must be a more nuanced debate, and debate and critique is what Parliament is there for. If the government is making a complete hash of it, or taking the country down a road which MPs feel is against the country's best interests, then MPs must speak out. This isn't a case of people against Parliament as has been represented in certain locations in the popular press; this is literally MPs doing their jobs. If, as is the case, a large number of MPs feel that a no-deal Brexit would be bad for the country, then they must hold the government to account in Parliament, and the government must not stop their voices from being heard and having an impact. The aim isn't for Parliament to placate a vocal group of people who want a particular Brexit at all costs; it's to act in the national interest.
We voted to leave! The national interest is us leaving on 31st October and Parliament is trying to stop it!
Not really. Parliament is trying to get the best deal for the country. We need to remember that specific options weren't on the ballot paper. It was a binary in/out question. If remain had won, you'd get those striving to leave hitting the roof if it was announced that the referendum result meant we were joining the Eurozone because that wasn't specified. In addition to that, the campaigning was clear that there would be deals in place before we left, protecting the national interest. The economic forecast for no-deal Brexit is not good; the north west region is forecast to take a 12% hit in the event of a no-deal Brexit, so it's no wonder that many MPs are trying to mitigate that risk. In what has been put forward by certain - quite frankly idiotic - commentators as a 'people versus establishment' debate, it's worth remembering that MPs are doing their best to protect the people from taking that hit where they feel they must.
But MPs are the establishment! They're frustrating the will of the people! Boris is quite right to stop them doing that!
Stop talking rubbish and read what was written above. Also: how on earth is someone educated at Eton not a member of the 'establishment'? Give your head a shake.
Without Parliament having the chance to debate and scrutinise, the government gets a free pass to do whatever it likes. It's true that it can't pass new primary legislation - an Act of Parliament - but it will rely on existing legislation and be in a position to use delegated legislation to govern. Without the scrutiny and approval of Parliament. Right now, Parliament has sat for five days while Johnson has been in power. By the time it gets to the middle of October, that will still only be five days - in almost three months.
It's also worth pointing out that the Prime Minister is the person who has the most control of the House of Commons. If the Prime Minister can't face the scrutiny of the House, then he's no Prime Minister. It's not a sign of strength. It's a sign of fundamental weakness.
But once Brexit goes through, it'll all go back to normal.
This is where it gets tricky. We have an unwritten constitution based on convention. If it's happened before, the precedent is set and it can happen again. It would fundamentally undermine Parliamentary democracy if, in order to force through changes, the government had the power to suspend Parliament and govern through statutory instrument and orders in council. In fact, I'd go so far as to call it a dictatorship, not a democracy. Scrutiny and debate are two key elements; when meaningful debate is silenced in Parliament, then that's it for Parliamentary democracy.
So imagine the situation: in 10 years time, a Labour government is in power. It wants to do something Parliament is opposed to, or which Parliament wants to give more scrutiny to before it passes into law. An existing law is similar, but not quite the same. Labour prorogue Parliament and use a statutory instrument to alter the existing Act of Parliament without debate and without scrutiny. Is this something that should be allowed to happen? Of course not. But the precedent has now been set, and that's a deeply dangerous and alarming move by any government.
But this is a one-off.
It won't be. If it's allowed to happen once, it WILL happen again. That's the thing about a constitutional convention. Governments shouldn't be allowed to escape Parliamentary scrutinity because it suits the result of a popular vote before the last general election. It might wash with people who support it, but populism is a dangerous force. How long before a government rides completely roughshod over Parliament claiming it has a mandate to do so?
Why should I care?
Democracy is a funny concept. Each country has a different democracy. Some have written constitutions making clear demarcations between the roles of the different branches of government. Some have unwritten constitutions which evolve over time. At the heart of them all is a plurality of opinions, free speech, and scrutiny of those who would wield power. Constitutionally speaking, power in the UK derives from the Crown, but in practice it comes from the people who provide a mandate. If the representatives of the people - that is the House of Commons, not the government - are prevented from holding a government to account then the voice of the people is silenced, Parliamentary sovereignty collapses, and everything the entire vote was about in the first place will be lost.
Governments which cannot be held to account are a step above dictatorships. Although it would be remiss at this point to refer to the move to prorogue Parliament as the act of a dictator, there are certainly authoritarian overtones which should not be ignored. If Parliament is subservient to the executive and has to pander to the whims of the Prime Minister, our representative democracy is compromised. Parliament's independence is sacrosanct precisely because it can hold the government to account. A backbencher can ask questions, there's no absolute obligation to vote with the party whip, and moves that would be against the national interest can be prevented. It's why this step is so dangerous and should be stopped immediately.
In addition to this, Parliament has more business than just Brexit. That's a 'believe it or not' sentence these days, but in an average year around 80 bills pass through Parliament to become Acts of Parliament. Many of them escape notice, but some are significant reforms to the law. If these don't take place in this session of Parliament, then the reform may never take place when the new session of Parliament begins and is bogged down with government business from the forthcoming Queen's speech.
Isn't Boris just setting Parliament up for the Queen's speech?
He is, but the timing couldn't be interpreted as anything other than a deliberate political trick. He could have waited until after 31st October, announced the Queen's speech, suspended business for a day or two (the tradition is around five business days) and then had the same Queen's speech. The fact is that this is an attempt to get the UK to default out of the EU with no deal - securing a political outcome that Parliament would be in no position to stop due to the lack of time to pass legislation to overrule what already exists.
And what about party conferences?
Every year, in September and October, conference season takes place. Parliament traditionally breaks up for conferences. The fundamental difference is in the nature of the breaking up. Usually, business can be suspended until after conferences, and Parliament itself sets the timetable - a key aspect of Parliamentary sovereignty. In this case, the break is forced upon Parliament from without, violating every constitutional convention on Parliamentary sitting. It's political game-playing at its most dangerous.
To conclude, this is a dangerous move that sets an equally dangerous precedent. It is actively anti-democratic and is (woe betide me for saying this, a phrase I hate) fundamentally unBritish. It's a move that, were we living in a sane world, would have ended Boris Johnson's career almost before he'd formulated the thought. Wherever you stand on the Brexit debate, you should be against this.
